Cover not available
Article published In:
Translation, Cognition & Behavior
Vol. 3:1 (2020) ► pp.51–75

“Article 1103: oh pff… yes—then concerns… the… um… unilateral contract…”

What do hesitation and repair markers tell us about text reception patterns of translators and lawyers?

ORCID logo | University of Geneva

Hesitation and lexical repair markers are part of almost every audibly pronounced sentence. Empirical linguistics generally bases its examinations on spontaneous speech production. This paper uses the discourse analytical approach of empirical linguistics to analyse think-aloud protocols produced by translators and lawyers in a mixed methods study combining thinking aloud and eyetracking. Two expert groups—lawyers and translators, comprising both professionals and students—read complex legal texts in French and summarised them in German, their mother tongue. A mainly qualitative analysis evaluates and categorises the occurrences and functions of various German hesitation and discourse markers. This not only provides information about the use of fillers and repair actions during speech but also insights into reception processes and perceptions of text difficulty. A quantitative analysis of pause fillers suggests that the reception processes of lawyers and translators differ.

Keywords: hesitation phenomena, pause fillers, text comprehension, legal translation, legal text, cognitive translation studies, translation process research
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Hesitation phenomena in spoken German
  • 3.Methodology and data
    • 3.1Informants, experimental design and material
    • 3.2Coding and analysis of think-aloud protocols
  • 4.Results
    • 4.1Qualitative analysis of discourse and hesitations markers
      • 4.1.1Discourse markers genau, okay and ja
      • 4.1.2Emotionally marked discourse markers ah and ach
      • 4.1.3Repair marker nein/nee
      • 4.1.4Discourse marker also with two discursive functions
      • 4.1.5The hesitation marker äh/ähm and repetitions
    • 4.2Quantification of coded discourse markers
      • 4.2.1Number of fillers and repetitions per 100 words
      • 4.2.2Comparison between fillers and repair markers per 100 words
  • 5.Discussion and conclusions
  • Acknowledgements
  • Notes
  • References
Published online: 13 May 2020
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/tcb.00034.gri
References
Amiridze, Nino, Boyd H. Davis, and Margaret Maclagan
eds. 2010 Fillers, Pauses and Placeholders. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Arnold, Jennifer E., Maria Fagnano, and Michael K. Tanenhaus
2003 “Disfluencies Signal Theee, Um, New Information.” Journal of Psycholinguistic Research 32 (1): 25–36. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Betz, Emma
2017 “Diskursmarker aus konversationsanalytischer Sicht: Prosodisch integriertes ja am Beginn von responsiven Turns.” [‘Discourse markers from the perspective of conversation analysis: Prosodically integrated Ja at the beginning of responsive turns’] In Diskursmarker im Deutschen: Reflexionen und Analysen. Edited by H. Blühdorn, A. Deppermann, H. Helmer, and T. Spranz-Fogasy, 183–206. Göttingen: Verlag für Gesprächsforschung.Google Scholar
Borja Albí, Anabel, and Fernando Prieto Ramos
eds. 2013 Legal Translation in Context: Professional issues and prospects. New York: Peter Lang. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Carl, Michael, Srinivas Bangalore, and Moritz Schaeffer
eds. 2016 New Directions in Empirical Translation Process Research: Exploring the CRITT TPR-DB. Cham: Springer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Clark, Herbert H., and Jean E. Fox Tree
2002 “Using uh and um in Spontaneous Speaking.” Cognition 84 (1): 73–111. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Clark, Herbert H., and T. Wasow
1998 “Repeating Words in Spontaneous Speech.” Cognitive Psychology 37 (3): 201–42. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Corley, Martin, and Oliver W. Stewart
2008 “Hesitation Disfluencies in Spontaneous Speech: The meaning of um .” Language and Linguistics Compass 2 (4): 589–602. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Creswell, John W., and Vicki L. Plano Clark
2011 Designing and Conducting Mixed Methods Research. 2nd ed. Los Angeles: SAGE Publications.Google Scholar
Defrancq, Bart, and Koen Plevoets
2017 “Over-Uh-Load, Filled Pauses in Compounds as a Signal of Cognitive Load.” In Making Way in Corpus-Based Interpreting Studies. Edited by M. C. Russo and C. Bendazzoli, 43–64. Singapore: Springer.Google Scholar
Dijk, Teun Adrianus van, and Walter Kintsch
1983 Strategies of Discourse Comprehension. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Dullion, Valérie
2014 “Droit comparé pour traducteurs: De la théorie à la didactique de la traduction juridique.” International Journal for the Semiotics of Law 28 (1): 91–106. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
guest ed. 2017 Between Specialised Texts and Institutional Contexts—Competence and choice in legal translation. Special issue, Translation and Translanguaging in Multilingual Contexts 3 (1).Google Scholar
Engberg, Jan
2012 “Word Meaning and the Problem of a Globalized Legal Order.” In The Oxford Handbook of Language and Law. Edited by L. M. Solan and P. M. Tiersma, 175–86: Oxford University Press. [URL].
Ericsson, Karl A., and Herbert A. Simon
1993 [1984] Protocol Analysis: Verbal reports as data. Rev. ed. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Fox, Barbara A.
2010 “Introduction.” In Fillers, Pauses and Placeholders. Edited by N. Amiridze, B. H. Davis, and M. Maclagan, 1–9. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Fox Tree, Jean, and Herbert H. Clark
1997 “Pronouncing “the” as “thee” to signal problems in speaking.” Cognition 62 (2): 151–67. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Göpferich, Susanne
2008 Translationsprozessforschung: Stand, Methoden, Perspektiven [‘Translation process research: State of the art, methods, perspectives’]. Tübingen: Narr.Google Scholar
Griebel, Cornelia
2017 “Fuzzy concepts in translators’ mind: A cognitive-translational approach to tackling the difficulties of legal translation.” In Between Specialised texts and Institutional Contexts—Competence and choice in legal translation. Edited by V. Dullion. Special issue, Translation and Translanguaging in Multilingual Contexts 3 (1): 97–113.Google Scholar
2019 “Rechtstexte unter der Lupe: Lesen Übersetzer anders als Juristen? Eine empirische Untersuchung der Rezeption von Textstrukturmarkern in der institutionalisierten Textsorte des französischen Kassationsgerichtsurteils” [Legal texts in the magnifying glass: Do translators read differently than lawyers?]. In Legal Translation: Current issues and challenges in research, methods and applications. Edited by I. Simonnæs and M. Kristiansen, 221–42. Berlin: Frank & Timme.Google Scholar
Grucza, Sambor, and Silvia Hansen-Schirra
eds. 2016 “Eyetracking and Applied Linguistics”. Berlin: Language Science Press. Google Scholar
Hjort-Pedersen, Mette, and Dorrit Faber
2009 “Uncertainty in the Cognitive Processing of a Legal Scenario: A process study of student translators.” Hermes 22 (42): 189–209. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hvelplund, Kristian T., and Barbara Dragsted
2018 “Genre Familiarity and Translation Processing: Differences and similarities between literary and LSP translators.” In Innovation and Expansion in Translation Process Research. Edited by I. Lacruz and R. Jääskeläinen, 55–76. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Jakobsen, Arnt Lykke
2003 “Effects of Think Aloud on Translation Speed, Revision, and Segmentation.” In Triangulating Translation: Perspectives in process-oriented research. Edited by F. Alves, 69–95. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kamensky, Mikhail V.
2016 “Automated Syntagmatik Analysis of English Discourse Markers.” In Communicating through the Universe. Edited by N. L. Greidina and Y. R. Kamalipour, 24–32. Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars Publishing.Google Scholar
Kuckartz, Udo
2016 Qualitative Inhaltsanalyse: Methoden, Praxis, Computerunterstützung [‘Qualitative content analysis: Methods, practice, computer support’]. Weinheim: Beltz Juventa.Google Scholar
Lacruz, Isabel, and Riitta Jääskeläinen
eds. 2018 Innovation and Expansion in Translation Process Research. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Le Cheng, King Kui Sin, and Anne Wagner
eds. 2014 The Ashgate Handbook of Legal Translation. Law, language and communication. Surrey: Ashgate.Google Scholar
Levelt, Willem J. M.
1998 (1989) Speaking: From intention to articulation. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
McNamara, Danielle S., and Joe Magliano
2009 “Toward a Comprehensive Model of Comprehension.” In Psychology of Learning and Motivation, vol. 511. Edited by Brian H. Ross, 297–384. London: Academic. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Mead, Peter
2008 “Exploring Hesitation in Consecutive Interpreting.” In Mental Spaces in Discourse and Interaction, vol. 431. Edited by T. Oakley and A. Hougaard, 73–82. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Munday, Jeremy, and Meifang Zhang
2017 “Introduction.” In Discourse Analysis in Translation Studies. Edited by J. Munday and M. Zhang, 1–10. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Muñoz, Edinson, Noelia Calvo, and Adolfo M. García
2019 “Grounding Translation and Interpreting in the Brain: What has been, can be, and must be done.” Perspectives 27 (4): 483–509. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Oloff, Florence
2017 “Genau als redebeitragsinterne, responsive, sequenzschließende oder sequenzstrukturierende Bestätigungspartikel im Gespräch” [‘ Genau as a speech-integrated, responsive, sequence-completing or sequence-structuring confirmation particle in conversation’]. In Diskursmarker im Deutschen: Reflexionen und Analysen. Edited by H. Blühdorn, A. Deppermann, H. Helmer and T. Spranz-Fogasy, 207–32. Göttingen: Verlag für Gesprächsforschung.Google Scholar
Orlando, Daniele
2017 “Calling Translation to the Bar: A comparative analysis of the translation errors made by translators and lawyers.” In Between Specialised Texts and Institutional Contexts—Competence and choice in legal translation. Edited by V. Dullion. Special issue, Translation and Translanguaging in Multilingual Contexts 3 (1): 81–96.Google Scholar
Othman, Zarina
2010 “The use of okay, right and yeah in Academic Lectures by Native Speaker Lecturers: Their ‘anticipated’ and ‘real’ meanings.” Discourse Studies 12 (5): 665–81. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Pfeiffer, Martin
2015 Selbstreparaturen im Deutschen [‘Self-repairs in German’]. Berlin: de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2017 “Über die Funktion der Reparaturmarker im Deutschen” [‘the function of discourse markers in German’]. In Diskursmarker im Deutschen: Reflexionen und Analysen. Edited by H. Blühdorn, A. Deppermann, H. Helmer, and T. Spranz-Fogasy, 259–84. Göttingen: Verlag für Gesprächsforschung.Google Scholar
Prieto Ramos, Fernando
2011 “Developing Legal Translation Competence: An integrative process-oriented approach.” Comperative Legilinguistics—International Journal for Legal Communication (5): 7–21. Google Scholar
Schnadt, Michael J., and Martin Corley
2006 “The Influence of Lexical, Conceptual and Planning based Factors on Disfluency Production.” In Proceedings of the Annual Meeting of the Cognitive Science Society, vol. 281, 750–55. [URL].
Simonnæs, Ingrid
2012 Rechtskommunikation national und international im Spannungsfeld von Hermeneutik, Kognition und Pragmatik. Berlin: Frank & Timme.Google Scholar
Simonnæs, Ingrid, and Marita Kristiansen
eds. 2019 Legal Translation: Current issues and challenges in research, methods and applications. Berlin: Frank & Timme.Google Scholar
Sun, Sanjun
2011 “Think-Aloud-Based Translation Process Research: Some methodological considerations.” Meta 56 (4): 928–951. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cited by

Cited by 2 other publications

Dorer, Brita
2022. How useful? How important? How difficult?. Translation, Cognition & Behavior 5:1 ► pp. 144 ff. DOI logo
Griebel, Cornelia
2021. Legal meta-comments in the think-aloud protocols of legal translators and lawyers. Target. International Journal of Translation Studies 33:2 ► pp. 183 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 8 april 2024. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers. Any errors therein should be reported to them.